Early Child Development and Care

ISSN: 0300-4430 (Print) 1476-8275 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gecd20

The effect of the Montessori education method

on pre-school children’s social competence –
behaviour and emotion regulation skills

Esra Dereli İman, Şahin Danişman, Zeynep Akin Demircan & Dilara Yaya

To cite this article: Esra Dereli İman, Şahin Danişman, Zeynep Akin Demircan & Dilara
Yaya (2019) The effect of the Montessori education method on pre-school children’s social
competence – behaviour and emotion regulation skills, Early Child Development and Care,
189:9, 1494-1508, DOI: 10.1080/03004430.2017.1392943

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2017.1392943

Published online: 26 Oct 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 9952

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 11 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gecd20
EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND CARE
2019, VOL. 189, NO. 9, 1494–1508
https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2017.1392943

The effect of the Montessori education method on pre-school

children’s social competence – behaviour and emotion regulation
skills
Esra Dereli İman a
, Şahin Danişmanb, Zeynep Akin Demircanc and Dilara Yayaa
a
Department of Preschool Education, University of Eskişehir Osmangazi, Eskişehir, Turkey; bDepartment of Education
Programs and Teaching, University of Düzce, Düzce, Turkey; cDepartment of Education Programs and Teaching,
University of Eskişehir Osmangazi, Eskişehir, Turkey

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This research aims to investigate the effect of Montessori method on social Received 19 September 2017
competence and behaviors of 3.5–5 years-old-children on their emotion Accepted 12 October 2017
regulation skills. Sequential Explanatory Design, one of the mixed
KEYWORDS
method designs, was used in the study. The study group of the research Montessori Method; pre-
consisted of 55 children attending two independent preschools in school period; child; social
Eskişehir. Personal Information Form, Social Competence and Behavior competence; social
Evaluation Inventory-Teacher and Parent Forms, Emotion Regulation behaviour; emotional
Checklist and Parent Interview Forms for the Evaluation of Montessori regulation
Method have been used to collect the data. Friedman test used for data
analysis. Post-hoc analysis with Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Mann-
Whitney U were conducted to reveal the source of differentiation
between the scores. It was determined that significant differences
between Social Competence – Behavior and Emotion Regulation Skills
sub-scale pretest and posttest mean scores of children in the study
group. There are significant differences between the posttest scores of
study and control groups.

Introduction
Early childhood (which covers the pre-school age and includes all experiences from childbirth to
primary school) is a period where development is at its highest and most significant in human life.
Montessori Method is an educational approach that provides auto-education opportunities,
freedom of studying individually, meets cognitive development and adaptability to social environ-
ment needs of the children using educational materials, developing their self-sufficiency skills
(Daoust, 2004; Temel, 2005; Williams, 1996). Montessori education is based on individual training
and children learn by themselves or together with their peers by trial and by repetition using Mon-
tessori materials (Köksal-Akyol, 2005). The philosophy behind the Montessori education aims to
provide the most suitable environment to support independence and the development of the
child, while promoting social and affective development of children to assist the children to
become responsible individuals that respect themselves, the environment and others and live in
harmony with the society in the future. In this method, children are not forced to participate in
any activity, gain the freedom of choice, decide by themselves on how to do what, while achieving
problem solving, creativity and communications skills (Mutlu, Ergişi, Bütün-Ayhan, & Aral, 2012). The
Montessori Method focuses on self-esteem, articulation and application of needs, independence,
cooperation and respect for others (Köksal-Akyol, 2005; Mutlu et al., 2012).

CONTACT Esra Dereli İman esdereli@hotmail.com

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND CARE 1495

Social and emotional development in the early period has a very significant role in the indepen-
dence of children, establishing and maintaining new relationships and determination of their roles
and status in society (Chen, Lin, & Li, 2012; Johnston, Tobbell, & Woolley, 2010; Knafo & Plomin,
2006). Social competence and emotion-regulation skills, which are the most important elements of
socialization process, are significant behavioural elements required to initiate and maintain positive
interactions with others (Gormley, Phillips, Newmark, Welti, & Adelstein, 2011). Social competence is
the achievement of social goals by the child within a specific social interaction (family-child, peer relationships,
etc.) and a specific context (home, school, etc.) and effective, proficient, and coordinated use of multiple pro-
cesses and resources in providing for social needs. (Iarocci, Yager, & Elfers, 2007)

Social competence in early childhood is the achievements of children in establishing social relation-
ships, reaching social goals, establishing and maintaining friendships, acceptance by their peers
(Knafo & Plomin, 2006; Kostelnik, Whiren, Soderman, Rupiper, & Gregory, 2012; Thompson, 1994).
Children without social competence often exhibit disciplinary problems at school and will be
under risk of academic failure in the future (McClelland, Acock, & Morrison, 2006). Pre-school children
socially interact with their peers and teachers in the educational environment of the institution they
attend and utilize emotion-regulation skills (Shields et al., 2001). Children are born with the emotions
of fear, joy, amazement, anger, curiosity and disgust. Children initially become aware of their own
emotions between the ages of 3–4 and afterwards realize the emotional state of other individuals.
Children aged between 4 and 5 years understand basic and complex emotions and more than
one emotion could be experienced in a situation. Furthermore, children learn how to avoid negative
emotions, cope with negative emotions and control them by observing the role models around them
during the same period (Knafo & Plomin, 2006; Sheppy, 2009). Emotion regulation was conceptual-
ized as the skill regulating emotional stimuli so that the individual becomes compatible with the
environment (Shields & Cicchetti, 1997; Thompson, 1994). Emotion regulation is not solely the skill
to cope with negative emotions, but also the skill to maintain positive emotions (Denham, 1998;
Hyson, 2004). Children with emotion-regulation skills could manage their emotions under all circum-
stances, reduce the possibility of exhibiting externalized and destructive behaviour disorders,
succeed in social and interpersonal relationships, and their academic achievements increase
(Howse, Calkins, Anastopoulos, Keane, & Shelton, 2003; Luby, 2005). Lability/negativity is the difficul-
ties children experience in responding to emerging emotional stimuli, at the same time avoiding
negative emotional responses (Dunsmore, Booker, & Ollendick, 2011). Children with lability /nega-
tivity exhibits wide mood swings, easily frustrated, prone to angry outburst, prone to angry tantrums
easily, takes pleasure in the distress of others, seems sad or listless, impulsive, displays aggressive and
intrusive acts. Lability/negativity in emotion regulation is directly related to internal and external
behavioural problems, failure in social competencies and destructive behaviour disorders
(Denham, 1998; Eisenberg et al., 1995; Kim & Deater-Deckard, 2011; Shields & Cicchetti, 1998;
Shields, Cicchetti, & Ryan, 1994). Evidence points to the importance of children’s social adjustment,
social development and emotional regulation for ensuring long-term success in school. Successful
transition to elementary school is social competence, the ability to effectively navigate social situ-
ations for positive developmental outcomes.
Montessori argued that development is a dynamic process and there were ‘sensitive periods’ in
this process (Şahin, 2010). Sensitive period for achievement of social competence and emotion-regu-
lation skills is the pre-school years. It was considered that the Montessori Method could support social
and emotional development of children with its educational characteristics that are directly related to
society and life such as doing on one’s own, independence, limited freedom, taking the responsibility
to learn, self-discipline, self-confidence, respect for children, selecting the materials, accomplishing
the selected task, self-removal of the game material, waiting one’s turn to play with the material
he or she is interested in, approval of group members for membership in the group, establishing
relationships older individuals (Morrison, 1998). Also the relevant literature shows that the Montessori
Method positively affects cooperation, social cooperation, social interactions, social independence,
1496 E. DERELI İMAN ET AL.

social skills (Eratay, 2011; Kayılı, 2010), and social, emotional skills (Aral, Yıldız-Bıçakcı, Yurteri-Tiryaki,
Çetin-Sultanoğlu, & Şahin, 2015) of pre-school children. However there were no studies on the impact
of the Montessori Method on the social competence behaviour and emotional-regulation skills of
pre-school children. Furthermore, studies on the effectiveness of the Montessori Method on child
development seemed to be limited to the information obtained using inventories and scales. In
the present study, the effects of the Montessori Method on the development of the social compe-
tence and emotion-regulation skills based on the views of parents to demonstrate the effectiveness
of the educational programme in a multi-dimensional manner. The research hypotheses were estab-
lished with the expectation that the Montessori Method of Education has a significant effect on the
social competence behaviour and emotion-regulation skills of pre-school children. Thus, the follow-
ing hypotheses were tested for accuracy.

(1) There is a statistically significant difference between social competence-behaviour sub-dimen-

sions scores of pre-school children participating in the Montessori Method of education and
that of the children in the control group.
(2) There is a statistically significant difference between the emotional regulation sub-dimensions
scores of pre-school children participating in the Montessori Method of education and that of
the children in the control group.
(3) There is no statistically significant difference between posttest social competence-behaviour sub-
dimensions scores and follow-up scores obtained four weeks after the application of the Montes-
sori Method of education.
(4) There is no statistically significant difference between posttest emotion-regulation sub-dimen-
sions scores and follow-up scores obtained four weeks after the application of the Montessori
Method of education.

Methods
Design
In this study was used Sequential Explanatory Design one of Mixed-Methods. Explanatory design
requires the use of qualitative data to support, explain and reinterpret quantitative data. In Sequential
Explanatory Design research, initially quantitative data are collected and analysed, and then qualitat-
ive data are collected and analysed to explain the quantitative data (Creswell & Garret, 2008). In the
quantitative part of the study, pretest–posttest matching control group quasi-experimental design
was used in the study (Büyüköztürk, 2007; Fraenkel & Wallen, 1993; Karasar, 2010). Since the
sample is selected from the classrooms formed by two independent kindergarten managements
with 3.5–5-years-old children prior to the study, a quasi-experimental model was utilized.

Participants
Determination of the study group was conducted by the criteria sampling method, one of the
methods of purposeful sampling (Punch, 2005; Yıldırım & Şimşek, 2011). In selection of the study
group, in accordance with criterion sampling, four criteria of attending a pre-school educational insti-
tute (being 3.5–5 years old, volunteering of parents and teachers in implementation of the edu-
cational programme and research scales; and for the qualitative dimension of the study,
participation in the Montessori Method) were taken into account. The study group of the current
study included 27 children between the ages of 3.5 and 5.5, attending Valide Mal Hatun Practice Kin-
dergarten during 2014–2015 academic year. The control group included 28 children between the
ages of 3.5 and 5.5, attending Öğretmen Esra Akkaya Kindergarten in Eskişehir city centre during
the same academic year. In Valide Mal Hatun kindergarten and Öğretmen Esra Akkaya Kindergarten,
only Ministry of National Education pre-school curriculum was implemented during the 2014–2015
 EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND CARE 1497

Table 1. The demographic characteristics of the study group.

Option Experimental group Control group
N % n %
Gender Male 17 62.96 19 67.86
Female 10 37.04 9 32.14
Total 27 100 28 100
3.5 3 11.11 3 10.71
Age 4 8 29.63 7 25.01
5–5.5 16 59.26 18 64.28
Total 27 100 28 100
Educational status Mother Primary education − − 1 3.57
Secondary education 7 25.93 9 32.14
Undergraduate/graduate 20 74.07 18 64.29
Total 27 100 28 100
Father Primary education − − − −
Secondary education 8 29.63 11 39.29
Undergraduate/graduate 19 70.37 17 60.71
Total 27 100 28 100
1001−2000 2 7.41 3 10.71
2001−3000 4 14.82 5 17.85
Income status 3001−4000 5 18.51 6 21.44
4001+ 16 59.26 14 50.00
Total 27 100 28 100

academic year. However, the Montessori Education method was applied to the students in the exper-
iment group at the Valide Mal Hatun kindergarten. Children in the control group continue to the Min-
istry of National Education pre-school curriculum in their own class. In Valide Mal Hatun kindergarten,
there are two classes for 3-year-olds, two classes for 4-year-olds, two classes for 5-year-olds and stu-
dents from each group were included in the sample of the present study. The study and control
groups were selected from two separate schools to eliminate the risk of the students being influ-
enced from their peers in the same classroom when they do not participate in Montessori education.
Also, Öğretmen Esra Akkaya Kindergarten has the same characteristics as the school in the exper-
imental group and both are public schools (Table 1).
As a result of the analysis of personal qualities of children in study and control groups, it could be
argued that the groups were similar. Also, the children in the experimental and control groups had
two years pre-school education.

Instruments
Personal information form
This form was used to determine personal characteristics (age, gender, parents’ educational status,
family income level) of study and control group children.

Montessori Method assessment parent interview form

This is a semi-structured interview form developed by the researchers to assess the efficiency of Mon-
tessori Method for parents.

Social competence and behaviour evaluation teacher form scale

The scale was developed by LaFreniere and Dumas (1996) to evaluate social competence and behav-
iour of 3–6-years-old children based on teacher observation. Cronbach alpha coefficient of the scale is
between .79 and .91; inter-rater reliability coefficient is between .72 and .89; correlation coefficient for
test–retest reliability assessment applied two weeks apart is between .78 and .86; correlation coeffi-
cient for test–retest reliability assessment applied six months apart is between .59 and .70 (LaFreniere,
1498 E. DERELI İMAN ET AL.

1996). Adaptation of the scale for 3.5-5.5-years-old children was conducted by the authors. Explora-
tory factor analysis results demonstrated that five items were non-performing and the scale demon-
strated a five-factor structure with an explained variance of 57.90% as in original form. There are nine
items in the social competence sub-dimension, six items in the anxiety sub-dimension, four items in
the aggressiveness sub-dimension, three items in the exclusion sub-dimension and three items in the
anger dimension. The highest score to be taken from the social competence dimension is 54, anxiety
dimension is 36, aggressiveness dimension is 24, exclusion dimension is 18 and anger dimension is
18. To confirm the obtained structure, confirmatory factor analysis was conducted with the other
dataset and the model was determined as acceptable fit (GFI = .90, AGFI = .85, CFI = .88, RMSEA
= .07, χ 2/sd = 2.47). Item-total correlation ranges of the items of the scale were .40 and .59. Scale-
wide calculated Cronbach alpha coefficient was .77; and it was .92, .82, .73, .72 and .74, respectively
for the sub-dimensions. Scale-wide calculated test–retest coefficient was .94; and it was .97, .89, .94,
.95 and .93, respectively for the sub-dimensions (Dereli İman, Danişman, Yaya, & Akın Demircan,
2014).

Social competence and behaviour evaluation parent form scale

The scale was developed by LaFreniere (1990) to evaluate social competence and behaviour of 3–6-
years-old children based on parent observation. Cronbach alpha coefficient for the scale differs
between .73 and .82 (Kotler & McMahon, 2002). Adaptation of the scale for 3.5–5.5-years-old children
was conducted by the authors. Exploratory factor analysis results demonstrated that 10 items were
non-performing and the scale demonstrated a three-factor structure with an explained variance of
76.26% as in original form. There are eight items in the social competence sub-dimension, seven
items in the anxiety-exclusion sub-dimension and five items in the anger-aggressiveness dimension.
The highest score to be taken from the social competence dimension is 48, anxiety-exclusion dimen-
sion is 42 and anger-aggressiveness dimension is 30. To confirm the obtained structure, confirmatory
factor analysis was applied to the other dataset and acceptable fit of the model was established (GFI
= .91, AGFI = .88, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .06, χ 2/sd = 2.07). Scale-wide calculated Cronbach alpha coeffi-
cient was .82; and it was .97, .86 and .92, respectively for the sub-dimensions. Scale-wide calculated
test–retest coefficient was .90; and it was .88, .92 and .90, respectively for the sub-dimensions (Dereli
İman et al., 2014).

Emotion-regulation checklist – teacher form

The scale was developed by Shields and Cicchetti (1997) to determine emotion-regulation and
control skills of pre-school and school-age children. The scale includes two subscales. Cronbach
alpha coefficient is .83 and .93 in lability/negativity dimension and emotion-regulation dimension,
respectively (Shields & Cicchetti, 1997; Shields et al., 2001). Turkish adaptation of the scale was
made for 3.5–5-years-old children by researchers. A two-factor structure was obtained as a result
of exploratory factor analysis that explained 81.12% of the total variance and it was observed that
the item that was excluded from both factors in the original scale was contained in the first factor.
There are 9 items in the emotion-regulation sub-dimension and 15 items in the negativity/lability
dimension. The highest score to be taken from the emotion-regulation dimension is 36, the lowest
score is 9. The highest score to be taken from the negativity/lability dimension is 60, the lowest
score is 15. To confirm the obtained structure confirmatory factor analysis was applied to the
other dataset and acceptable fit of the model was established (GFI = .93, AGFI = .90, CFI = .97,
RMSEA = .07, χ 2/sd = 2.83). Scale-wide calculated Cronbach alpha coefficient was .88; and it was
.98, and .98, respectively for the sub-dimensions. Scale-wide calculated test–retest coefficient was
.86; and it was .83, and .91 respectively for the sub-dimensions (Danişman, Dereli İman, Akın Demir-
can, & Yaya, 2015).
 EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND CARE 1499

Procedure
Before the researchers implemented the Montessori Method in the study group, they were certified
at the end of 120 hours of theoretical, 60 hours of applied training and 160 hours of observation, a
total of 340 hours of training from a trainer with an American Montessori Institute (AMI) Montessori
Instructor Training certificate. There was a class teacher and three assistant teachers in the exper-
iment and control group. Thus, the educational opportunities were equalized in the experiment
and control group. Teachers filled the Social Competence and Behaviour Evaluation Form and
Emotion Regulation Checklist Teacher Form; parents filled the Social Competence and Behaviour
Evaluation Form before, after, and four weeks after the Montessori Method was implemented. Fur-
thermore, at the end of the Montessori Method application, semi-structured interviews were con-
ducted to using Montessori Method Assessment Parent Interview form. The teachers of the
experimental group were active and observer only at times when the Montessori training programme
was not implemented. Information was provided on the teachers and parents and on the application
of the training programme in the experiment group. However, teachers and parents in the exper-
imental group were not aware that children would be compared with the control group.

Instruction of Montessori education

In Eskişehir Osmangazi University Valide Mal Hatun Practice Kindergarten, an application class that
includes Montessori material was created in compliance with the Montessori Method. The Montessori
Method instructions were conducted regularly with 3.5–5.5-years-old students, 6 hours per day for 28
weeks. Montessori application plans were sent to five field specialists in the field of child develop-
ment and pre-school education, and were sent to three field of developmental psychology. The
activities were reviewed again in terms of writing rules, suitability to goal and indicators, conformity
with developmental characteristics of children, complementary activities, material need. While the
Montessori Education Program implementation plans were being prepared, the Ministry of National
Education (MEB) pre-school curriculum was based on goal and indicators. In line with the opinions of
field experts, plans the necessary corrections and changes were made again, so that the coverage of
the training programme has been tried to be valid. The activities were conducted using daily life,
senses, mathematics, geometry and art materials under the leadership of Montessori Method
project educators.

Data analysis
Data provided by the data collection tools in the study were analysed using SPSS 21.0 software. The
normality of data checked using Kolmogorov–Smirnov Z-test and verified that the data did not nor-
mally distributed (Z varing from 0.64 to 1.32). Thus, the data were analysed with Friedman test, Mann–
Whitney U-test and Wilcoxon signed ranks test. Bonferroni correction method has also been used to
avoid Type I error, since several statistical tests have been conducted using the same dataset (Vialatte
& Cichocki, 2008). Responses for the open-ended questions in qualitative interview form were ana-
lysed with content analysis. In addition, coding by two independent researchers were compared
and different codes were revised according to the proposals of another field expert and a consensus
was reached. The reliability of the coding process has been checked using the inter-rater reliability
formula proposed by Miles and Huberman (1994) as follows:
Number of Agreements
Inter - rater Reliability = .
Total number of Agreements + Disagreements × 100
The reliability of the independent codings have been found to be 89.4% and 91.5% respectively
for the effects on the behaviours of the children and on the decrease in misbehaviours of children.
This result can be considered as the proof for reliability, as it is over 70% (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
1500 E. DERELI İMAN ET AL.

Results
Initially, Friedman test has been used to find out the differences between three distinct measures of
the study group at three different time.
A non-parametric Friedman test of differences among repeated measures at three different time
points was conducted and rendered statistically significant Chi-square values (p < .005) for all the sub-
scales of the study (see Table 2). Post-hoc analysis with Wilcoxon signed-rank test was conducted to
reveal the source of differentiation between the scores.
In Table 3, it was determined that there were significant differences between SCB-T subscale
pretest and posttest mean scores of children in the study group (p < .01 for all z-scores). On the
other hand, no significant difference has been found out between the posttest and follow-up
scores of SCB-T subscales. It can be inferred that social competence scores of the children have
increased, while anxiety, aggressiveness, exclusion and anger scores have decreased during the
experiment process.
In Table 4, it was determined that the significant differences between all the SCB-P subscale the
pretest and posttest scores of children in the study group (p < .017 for all z-scores). On the other hand,
no significant difference has been found out between the posttest and follow-up scores of SCB-P sub-
scales. It can be inferred that social competence scores have increased, while anxiety/withdrawal and
aggressiveness scores have decreased during the experiment process.
Table 5 indicates the significant differences between the ER subscale pretest and posttest scores of
children in the study group (p < .025 for all sub-scales). However, there is no difference between the

Table 2. Friedman test results for social competence and behaviour teacher & parent form and emotion-regulation pretest–
posttest-follow-up scores of children in the study group.
Measure Mean SD Mean rank χ2 p*
SCB-T Social competence Pretest 22.59 4.85 1.00 48.86 .0001
Posttest 47.41 7.53 2.61
Follow-up 45.15 7.56 2.39
Anxiety Pretest 10.11 2.44 2.67 21.68 .0001
Posttest 8.26 2.14 1.56
Follow-up 8.15 1.56 1.78
Aggressiveness Pretest 9.59 2.01 2.80 36.18 .0001
Posttest 7.11 1.99 1.48
Follow-up 7.37 1.74 1.72
Exclusion Pretest 6.26 2.64 2.48 17.21 .0001
Posttest 4.41 1.34 1.56
Follow-up 5.00 1.27 1.96
Anger Pretest 6.11 2.08 2.61 29.72 .0001
Posttest 4.44 1.25 1.59
Follow-up 4.59 1.37 1.80
(SCB-P) Social competence Pretest 36.48 8.50 1.11 37.91 .0001
Posttest 45.48 3.52 2.52
Follow-up 44.19 3.64 2.37
Anxiety/Withdrawal Pretest 13.41 4.25 2.78 31.89 .0001
Posttest 8.74 3.82 1.76
Follow-up 8.15 3.24 1.46
Aggressiveness Pretest 9.78 3.31 2.70 31.40 .0001
Posttest 7.30 1.81 1.57
Follow-up 7.48 2.03 1.72
ER) Negativity/lability Pretest 36.56 4.38 3.00 43.76 .0001
Posttest 25.63 4.06 1.48
Follow-up 24.22 7.40 1.52
Emotion regulation Pretest 22.70 3.77 1.09 44.47 .0001
Posttest 31.33 3.23 2.44
Follow-up 31.37 3.07 2.46
Note: SCB-T & SCB-P stands for Social Competence and Behaviour Teacher & Parent Form respectively. ER stands for Emotion Regu-
lation.
*Statistical significance level has been adopted as .05/10 = .005 for this analysis using Bonferroni correction.
 EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND CARE 1501

Table 3. Wilcoxon signed-rank test results for social competence and behaviour teacher form pretest & posttest and posttest &
follow-up scores of children in the study group.
Group n Mean rank Sum of ranks Z*
Social competence Negative ranks 0 8 .00 5.56 .00 44.50 −4.55* −1.73
Positive ranks 27 2 14.00 5.25 378.00 10.50
Ties 0 17
Anxiety Negative ranks 22 7 12.07 12.14 265.50 85.00 −2.79* −0.41
Positive ranks 3 12 19.83 8.75 59.50 105.00
Ties 2 8
Aggressiveness Negative ranks 24 3 12.50 6.83 300.00 20.50 −4.31* −0.72
Positive ranks 0 7 .00 4.93 .00 34.50
Ties 3 17
Exclusion Negative ranks 18 0 10.72 .00 193.00 .00 −3.30* −2.59
Positive ranks 2 8 8.50 4.50 17.00 36.00
Ties 7 19
Anger Negative ranks 18 1 9.50 3.50 171.00 3.50 −3.75* −1.63
Positive ranks 0 5 .00 3.50 .00 17.50
Ties 9 21
Note: The first column represents the values for pretest & posttest scores, while the second column represents the values for postt-
est & follow-up test scores for each variable in the first row.
*Statistical significance level has been adopted as .05/5 = .01 for this analysis using Bonferroni correction.

Table 4. Wilcoxon signed-rank test results for social competence and behaviour parent form pretest & posttest and posttest &
follow-up scores of children in the study group.
Group n Mean rank Sum of ranks Z*
Social competence Negative ranks 2 10 4.00 8.40 8.00 84.00 −4.26* −1.98
Positive ranks 24 4 14.29 5.25 343.00 21.00
Ties 1 13
Anxiety/Withdrawal Negative ranks 23 8 13.91 5.44 320.00 43.50 −3.68* −2.17
Positive ranks 3 1 10.33 1.50 31.00 1.50
Ties 1 18
Aggressiveness Negative ranks 21 2 11.00 3.00 231.00 6.00 −4.06* −0.96
Positive Ranks 0 4 .00 3.75 .00 15.00
Ties 6 21
Note: The first column represents the values for pretest & posttest scores, while the second column represents the values for postt-
est & follow-up test scores for each variable in the first row.
*Statistical significance level has been adopted as .05/3 = .017 for this analysis using Bonferroni correction.

Table 5. Wilcoxon signed-rank test results for emotion-regulation pretest & posttest and posttest & follow-up scores of children in
the study group.
Group n Mean rank Sum of ranks Z*
Negativity/Variability Negative ranks 27 9 14.00 12.67 378.00 114.00 −4.55* −0.77
Positive ranks 0 10 .00 7.60 .00 76.00
Ties 0 8
Emotion regulation Negative ranks 1 2 6.00 2.00 6.00 4.00 −4.32* −0.38
Positive ranks 25 2 13.80 3.00 345.00 6.00
Ties 1 23
Note: The first column represents the values for pretest & posttest scores, while the second column represents the values for postt-
est & follow-up test scores for each variable in the first row.
*Statistical significance level has been adopted as .05/2 = .025 for this analysis using Bonferroni correction.

posttest and follow-up scores of these children. It can be inferred that negativity/variability scores
have decreased, while emotion-regulation scores have increased during the experiment process.
Table 6 presents that there are not significant differences between the SCB-T sub-scales pretest
and posttest scores (p > .025).
Table 7 presents that there is no significant differences between the pretest and posttest SCB-P
subscale scores of children in the control group (p > .017 for all z-scores).
1502 E. DERELI İMAN ET AL.

Table 6. Wilcoxon signed-rank test results for social competence and behaviour teacher form pretest & posttest scores of children
in the control group.
Group n Mean rank Sum of ranks Z*
Social competence Negative ranks 3 5.00 15.00 −2.12
Positive ranks 10 7.60 76.00
Ties 15
Anxiety Negative Ranks 0 .00 .00 −1.00
Positive ranks 1 1.00 1.00
Ties 27
Aggressiveness Negative ranks 6 7.58 45.50 .00
Positive ranks 7 6.50 45.50
Ties 15
Exclusion Negative ranks 4 3.88 15.50 −0.36
Positive ranks 4 5.13 20.50
Ties 20
Anger Negative ranks 3 3.67 11.00 −0.97
Positive ranks 2 2.00 4.00
Ties 23
*Statistical significance level has been adopted as .05/5 = .01 for this analysis using Bonferroni correction.

Table 7. Wilcoxon signed-rank test results for social competence and behaviour parent form pretest–posttest scores of children in
the control group.
Group N Mean rank Sum of ranks Z*
Social competence Negative ranks 3 2.17 6.50 −1.90
Positive ranks 6 6.42 38.50
Ties 19
Anxiety/Withdrawal Negative ranks 10 11.90 119.00 −1.47
Positive ranks 8 6.50 52.00
Ties 10
Aggressiveness Negative ranks 5 3.80 19.00 −0.85
Positive ranks 2 4.50 9.00
Ties 21
*Statistical significance level has been adopted as .05/3 = .017 for this analysis using Bonferroni correction.

According to Table 8, there is no significant difference between the pretest and posttest ER sub-
scale of Negativity/lability and Emotion Regulation subscale (p > .025).
Mann–Whitney U-test results of children in study and control group for SCB-T pretest and posttest
scores separately have been presented in Table 9. According to the test results, there are significant
differences between the posttest scores of study and control groups (p < .01 for all U-values), while
there is no such difference between the pretest scores of these groups (p > .01 for all U-values). It can
be inferred that social competence scores of study group were higher than the scores of control
group, while the anxiety, aggressiveness, withdrawal and anger scores of control group were
higher than the scores of study group. Furthermore, all the SCB-T subscale scores were the same
for both groups before the experiment.
Table 10 shows that there are significant differences between the SCB-P posttest scores of study
and control groups (p < .017 for all U-values), while there is no such difference between the SCB-P
pretest scores of these groups (p > .017 for all U-values). It can be inferred that social competence

Table 8. Wilcoxon signed-rank test results for emotion-regulation pretest–posttest scores of children in the control group.
Group n Mean rank Sum of ranks Z*
Negativity/lability Negative ranks 15 11.33 170.00 −1.436
Positive ranks 7 11.86 83.00
Ties 6
Emotion regulation Negative ranks 9 14.78 133.00 −.488
Positive ranks 15 11.13 167.00
Ties 4
*Statistical significance level has been adopted as .05/2 = .025 for this analysis using Bonferroni correction.
 EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND CARE 1503

Table 9. Mann–Whitney U-test results on social competence and behaviour teacher form pretest and posttest scores of study and
control group children.
Pretest/Posttest Group N Mean rank. Sum of ranks z U*
Social competence Study 27 24.67 40.59 666.00 1096.00 −1.54 −5.74 288.00 38.00*
Control 28 31.21 15.86 874.00 444.00
Anxiety Study 27 24.33 18.57 657.00 501.50 −1.69 −4.34 279.00 123.50*
Control 28 31.54 37.09 883.00 1038.50
Aggressiveness Study 27 30.43 21.85 821.50 590.00 −1.12 −2.82 312.50 212.00*
Control 28 25.66 33.93 718.50 950.00
Withdrawal Study 27 28.76 19.76 776.50 533.50 −0.35 −3.85 357.50 155.50*
Control 28 27.27 35.95 763.50 1006.50
Anger Study 27 27.22 19.09 735.00 515.50 −0.36 −4.14 357.00 137.50*
Control 28 28.75 36.59 805.00 1024.50
Note: The first column represents the values for pretest scores, while the second column represents the values for posttest scores
for each variable in the first row.
*Statistical significance level has been adopted as .05/5 = .01 for this analysis using Bonferroni correction.

Table 10. Mann–Whitney U-test results on social competence and behaviour parent form pretest and posttest scores of study and
control group children.
Pretest Group n Mean rank. Sum of ranks z U*
Social competence Study 27 26.81 36.46 724.00 984.50 −0.54 −3.86 346.00 149.50*
Control 28 29.14 19.84 816.00 555.50
Anxiety/Withdrawal Study 27 30.33 21.65 819.00 584.50 −1.07 −2.91 315.00 206.50*
Control 28 25.75 34.13 721.00 955.50
Aggressiveness Study 27 29.17 21.41 787.50 578.00 −0.54 −3.04 346.50 200.00*
Control 28 26.88 34.36 752.50 962.00
Note: The first column represents the values for pretest scores, while the second column represents the values for posttest scores
for each variable in the first row.
*Statistical significance level has been adopted as .05/3 = .017 for this analysis using Bonferroni correction.

scores of study group were higher than the scores of control group, while the anxiety/withdrawal and
aggressiveness scores of control group were higher than the scores of study group. Furthermore, all
the SCB-P subscale scores were the same for both groups before the experiment.
According to Table 11, there are significant differences between the Negativity/lability subscale
and Emotion Regulation subscale posttest scores of study and control groups (p < .025). It can be
inferred that emotion-regulation scores of study group were higher than the scores of control
group, while the negativity/lability scores of control group were higher than the scores of study
group. Furthermore, the negativity/lability and emotion-regulation scores were the same for both
groups before the experiment.

Results on a fortiori qualitative data

In addition to the quantitative results mentioned above, semi-structured interviews were conducted
with the parents of children in the study group to support these findings and the analysis results for
these interviews are presented below:

Table 11. Mann–Whitney U-test results on social competence and behaviour parent form pretest and posttest scores of study and
control group children.
Pretest Group n Mean rank. Sum of ranks Z U*
Negativity/lability Study 27 29.44 15.46 795.00 417.50 −.662 −5.72 339.00* 39.50*
Control 28 26.61 40.09 745.00 1122.50
Emotion regulation Study 27 27.69 39.87 747.50 1076.50 −1.44 −5.43 369.50 57.50*
Control 28 28.30 16.55 792.50 463.50
Note: The first column represents the values for pretest scores, while the second column represents the values for posttest scores
for each variable in the first row.
*Statistical significance level has been adopted as .05/2 = .025 for this analysis using Bonferroni correction.
1504 E. DERELI İMAN ET AL.

Table 12. The views of parents of children in the study group on the effects of Montessori Method on the behaviour of the children.
Questions
Did Montessori method affected
the behaviour of your child
positively?
Which behaviour of the child
Montessori Method affected
positively?
Codes
It affected my child’s
behaviour positively
Not affect my child’s
behaviour
I do not know.
Increase in
self-confidence
Increase in assertiveness
skills
Improvement in self-care
skills
Increase in self-regulation
Increase in making the
choice
Increase in reconciliatory
behaviour
Improvement in fine
motor skills
Increase in sharing
Increase in decisive
behaviour
Improvement in
self-expression
Increase in obeying the
rules
Exploring new interests
Politeness
Increase in respect for
others
Increase in the interest
for mathematics
Sample expressions f
I believe that the education had positive change on my 21
child’s behaviour ( P7) 2
I did not notice any change in my child (P3) 1
I cannot answer ( P8)
(S)he started to implement things he or she learned at 9
school. His (her) increased belief that (s)he could do and
success (P5)
After training, when tried to take his/her toys from hand, 9
(s)he says hat (s)he took it before (P11).
Her/his some skills such as washing hands-face by himself- 7
herself, performing errands, putting the things back
where they belong, setting the table have been
improved (P9).
(S)he became more regular. (S)he decides by herself about 7
what to play and when to sleep and collecting toys (P12)
(S)he began to decide which shoes and dress to wear, 4
what food to buy from the supermarket (P5).
(S)he collects her toys. He had less fights with friends and 4
started talking to try to resolve the disputes (P7)
(S)he now can zip her coat, button up clothes, bind shoes, 4
cut with scissors and write with a pen (P15)
(S)he began to share her/his toys with her/his friends and 3
sister, and food to give to his/her sister (P10)
The time for participating in an activity or playing with a 3
toy has been increased (P22).
S)he began to tell her/his likes, requests, loves and worries 2
(P19).
There has been increased obedience such as collecting 2
toys, noise failure, not damage to household goods at
home (P23)
Her/his interest has been increased on making puzzle, 1
transfer activities, continents and countries (P16).
(S)he started to use the words often such as ‘Thank you’ 1
and ‘sorry’ (P24)
(S)he learned to wait and to respect for everyone (P17). 1
(S)he lately began to be interested in the activities 1
associated with numbers and enjoyed counting the
objects in front of the boot (P1).

Review of Table 12 demonstrated that 21 parents of children in experimental group adopted the
view that Montessori Method was effective in their children acquiring positive behaviour. They stated
that Montessori education was effective especially in the increase in self-confidence, being assertive,
self-care and self-setting skills in their children.

Discussion
Study findings demonstrated that Montessori Education Method positively affects social compe-
tency and behaviour of 4–5-years-old children. Furthermore, parents and teachers stated that Mon-
tessori Education Method resulted in positive changes in positive behaviour of the children in their
social development. The Montessori Method includes specially designed child-peer activities that
support children’s learning. The physical layout of the classes is constructed so that children could
interact with each other and with adults, and the curriculum content reflects this interaction. Rather
than being individuals who teach things to students, teachers are individuals who guide or facilitate
children’s learning; instead of being at the centre of the setting, they are a part of it. Thus, children
 EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND CARE 1505

are encouraged to manage their own behaviour, take responsibility, plan and achieve the goals
(Crain, 2015). The Montessori Method allows children to experience and explore several social
roles and skills in a safe and healthy environment. This method allows the children to freely
share their ideas and thoughts, listen to the ideas and thoughts of their peers without the guidance
of the teacher. Furthermore, children are able to negotiate a social solution, such as freely sharing
and waiting for her or his turn when solving a problem without orientation of an adult (Isaacs, 2015;
Stoll-Lillard, 2016). Since the teaching environment and educational philosophy of the Montessori
Method allow children to take responsibility for their own educational process, to choose, to
respect other individuals’ choices, to protect their own rights and the rights of their peers, to inter-
act with each other and adults, to experience and explore social roles and skills, and to negotiate a
social solution via free sharing and waiting for her or his turn in problem solving, it supports chil-
dren’s social competence and behaviour (Aral et al., 2015; Isaacs, 2015; Stoll-Lillard, 2016). These
features of the Montessori Method, which are different from the conventional methodology,
might affect children’s social competence and behaviour. Flynn (1991), Castellanos (2003) demon-
strated that children educated with Montessori Method were more successful in the achievement
of social, behavioural skills peer relationships, personal behaviour, prosocial behaviour while their
physical and verbal aggression behaviour was significantly lower. Also, Eratay (2011), Keçecioğlu
(2015), Kayılı (2010), Toran (2011), Aral et al. (2015) determined that children who received Montes-
sori education had higher social cooperation, social interaction, social independence, social skills
and social development scores when compared to the scores of children who were instructed
with MEB pre-school curriculum.
Study findings demonstrated that Montessori Education Method positively affects emotion-
regulation skills of 4–5-years-old children. Furthermore, parents stated that Montessori Education
Method resulted in positive changes in positive behaviour of the children in their emotional devel-
opment. In an environment enriched with ‘Montessori materials,’ development of ‘self-control’ and
thus the development of the skill to guide self-behaviour were aimed in children (Follari, 2007;
Şahin, 2010; Temel, 2015). Montessori approach gives opportunities for the child to research,
test, make mistakes and correct their mistakes by themselves (Temel, 2015; Temel & Toran, 2012;
Toran, 2011). The understanding of freedom and discipline in Montessori classrooms correspond
to democracy and peace in real life. The freedom given to children in Montessori approach is
the responsibilities they take both against themselves and the nature. The development of these
responsibilities is possible through inner discipline. Inner discipline promotes the development
of the understanding of respect, love, peace, tolerance and accepting the differences (Leseman,
2012; Williams, 1996). Montessori expressed that children would need assistance in gaining their
independence. This assistance does not entail doing something for the child, but to provide oppor-
tunities for the child to use own mental, physical and emotional tools (Danişman, 2013; Rathunde,
2005; Temel, 2015). Since there is only one of each material in a Montessori classroom, children wait
for another to finish using this material, affecting the achievement of emotion-regulation skills by
the child. As a result of the mixed age policy in Montessori classrooms, children could learn about
several emotional experiences. Children could make choices while the study, decide on how long
they would study, check for mistakes in their own work, select the friends they would work with and
form small groups on self-initiative, which in turn affect their emotional development. This also
enables children to learn from each other and could transfer their knowledge to peers and teachers.
Castellanos (2003) demonstrated that children who had Montessori education displayed signifi-
cantly higher self-respect, self-efficacy, self-interest skills, achievement of emotional skills, expres-
sing emotions, creating a healing process than the those educated with conventional method.
However, Keçecioğlu (2015) did not find any significant difference in the self-control scores of
the children who were trained with the MEB pre-school curriculum and that of the children who
received Montessori approach education.
1506 E. DERELI İMAN ET AL.

Conclusion
It was found in the current study that Montessori Method positively affected social competence and
behaviour, and emotion-regulation skills of 3.5–5-years-old children.
The long-term effects of Montessori Method of Education on social competence behaviour and
emotion-regulation skills of children who were instructed with Montessori Method of Education
could be investigated.

Limitations
The improvements resulting from the Montessori training programme applied to the experimental
group may have been influenced by the teaching-related effects. Results related to the experimental
group may have been affected by the teacher-child relationship. Also, conducting the research with a
small group may affect the results of the research.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Esra Derel İman is an expert in the field of Preschool Education. She has undergraduate degree in Preschool Education,
master degree in Child Development and Preschool Education, doctorate degree in Child Development and Preschool
education, associate professor degree in Child Development and Precshool Education. She has a number of researches
on child development and preschool education.
Şahin Danişman is an expert in the field of Preschool Education. He has undergraduate degree in Mathematics Edu-
cation, master degree in Education Programs and Teaching, doctorate degree in Education Programs and Teaching.
He has a number of researches on Mathematics Education and Education Programs and Teaching.
Zeynep Akin Demircan is an expert in the field of Education Programs and Teaching. She has undergraduate degree in
Primary Education, master degree in Education Programs and Teaching, doctorate degree in Education Programs and
Teaching. She has a number of researches on Primary Education and Education Programs and Teaching.
Dilara Yaya is an expert in the field of Preschool Education. She has undergraduate degree in Primary Education, master
degree in Education Management and Supervision, doctorate degree in Preschool education. She has a number of
researches on preschool education and education management.

ORCID
Esra Dereli İman http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1726-3144

References
Aral, N., Yıldız-Bıçakcı, M., Yurteri-Tiryaki, A., Çetin-Sultanoğlu, S., & Şahin, S. (2015). An examination of the effect of
Montessori education on the development of children. Hacettepe University Educational Sciences Institute Journal of
Educational Researches, 1(1), 32–52.
Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2007). Experimental patterns pre- and posttest control group pattern and data analysis. Ankara: Pegem
Academy Publications.
Castellanos, A. G. (2003). A comparison of traditional vs. Montessori education in relation to children’s self-esteem, self-effi-
cacy, and prosocial behavior (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Carlos Albizu University, USA.
Chen, F. M., Lin, H. S., & Li, C. H. (2012) The role of emotion in parent–child relationships: Children’s emotionality, maternal
meta-emotion, and children’s attachment security. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 21(3), 403–410.
Crain, W. (2015). Theories of development: Concepts and applications. New York, NY: Routledge.
Creswell, J. W., & Garret, A. L. (2008). The “movement” of mixed methods research and the role of educators. South African
Journal of Education, 28(3), 321–333
Danişman, Ş. (2013). An overview of the Montessori approach and the organization of the educational environment.
Journal of Policy Analysis in Education, 1(2), 85–113.
 EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND CARE 1507

Danişman, Ş., Dereli İman, E., Akın Demircan Z., & Yaya, D. (2015, July). Emotion regulation checklist: Adaptation into Turkish
and psychometric analyses for 4-5 years. Paper presented at the Third International Symposium on Economics And
Social Science, Tokyo, Japan.
Daoust, C. J. (2004). An examination of ımplementation practices in Montessori early childhood education (Unpublished doc-
toral dissertation). University of California, Berkeley.
Denham, S. A. (1998). Emotional development in young children. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Dereli İman, E., Danişman, Ş., Yaya, D., & Akın Demircan, Z. (2014, September). Pre-school social competence and behavioral
assessment of the teacher and parent scales for the 4-5 age group. Paper presented at the 23rd National Educational
Sciences Congress, Kocaeli, Turkey.
Dunsmore, J. C., Booker, J. A., & Ollendick, T. H. (2011). Parental emotion coaching and child emotion regulation as pro-
tective factors for children with oppositional defiant disorder. Social Development, 22(3), 1–23.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Murphy, B., Maszk, P., Smith, M., & Karbon, M. (1995). The role of emotionality and regulation in
children’s social functioning: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 66, 1360–1384.
Eratay, E. (2011). The effectiveness of the Montessori Method. Journal of Pegem Education and Training, 1(1), 11–19.
Flynn, T. M. (1991). Development of social, personal and cognitive skills of preschool children in Montessori and tra-
ditional preschool programs. Early Child Development and Care, 72(1), 117–124.
Follari, L. M. (2007). Foundations and best practices in early childhood education. Boston: Pearson Publishing.
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (1993). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Gormley, W. T., Phillips, D. A., Newmark, K., Welti, K., & Adelstein, S. (2011). Social-emotional effects of early childhood
education programs in Tulsa. Child Development, 82(6), 2095–2109.
Howse, R. B., Calkins, S. D., Anastopoulos, A. D., Keane, S. P., & Shelton, T.L. (2003). Regulatory contributors to children’s
kindergarten achievement. Early Education and Development, 14, 101–119.
Hyson, M. (2004). Emotional development of young children: Building and emotion-centered curriculum (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
Iarocci, G., Yager, J., & Elfers, T. (2007). What gene-environment interactions can tell us about social competence in typical
and atypical populations. Brain and Cognition, 65, 112–127.
Isaacs, B. (2015). Bringing the Montessori approach to your early years practise. New York, NY: Routledge.
Johnston, J., Tobbell, C., & Woolley, R. (2010). Personal, social and emotional development. New York, NY: Continuum
International Publishing Group.
Karasar, N. (2010). Scientific research method. Ankara: Nobel Publication Distribution.
Kayılı, G. (2010). An examination of the effect of the Montessori Method on primary school readiness of kindergarten children
(Unpublished master thesis). Selcuk University Institute of Social Sciences, Konya
Keçecioğlu, Ö. (2015). An examination of the social skills of 5-year-old children who are trained according to the pre-school
education program of MEB and the Montessori approach (Unpublished master thesis). Marmara University Educational
Sciences Institute, Istanbul.
Kim, J., & Deater-Deckard, K. (2011). Dynamic changes in anger, externalizing and internalizing problems: Attention and
regulation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52(2), 156–166.
Knafo, A., & Plomin, R. (2006). Prosocial behavior from early to middle childhood: Genetic and environmental influences
on stability and change. Developmental Psychology, 42, 771–786.
Köksal-Akyol, A. (2005). 36-72 similarities between pre-school education program and Montessori approach for monthly chil-
dren. Paper presented at the 3rd National Educational Science Congress, Denizli, Turkey.
Kostelnik, M., Whiren, A., Soderman, A., Rupiper, M. L., & Gregory, K. (2012). Guiding children’s social development and learn-
ing. Stanford: Cengage Learning.
Kotler, J. C., & McMahon, R. J. (2002). Differentiating anxious, aggressive, and socially competent preschool chlidren:
Validation of the Social Competence and Behavior Evaluation-30 (parent version). Behaviour Research and Therapy,
40, 947–959.
LaFreniere, P. J. (1990). Social competence and behavior evaluation-30 (preschool ed.) (parent version). Unpublished
measure.
LaFreniere, P. J. (1996). Cooperation among peers as a conditional strategy: The influence of family ecology and kin
relations. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 19(1), 39–52.
LaFreniere, P. J., & Dumas, J. E. (1996). Social competence and behavior evaluation in children aged 3- to 6-years: The
short form (SCBE-30). Psychological Assessment, 8, 369–377.
Leseman, P. (2012). Preschool and learning-related skills. Encyclopedia on early childhood development. Retrieved from
http://www.child-encyclopedia.com/Pages/PDF/LesemanANGxp1.pdf
Luby, J. L. (2005). Depression. In C. H. Zeanah (Ed.), Handbook of infant mental health (2nd ed., pp. 382–396). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
McClelland, M. M., Acock, A. C., & Morrison, F. J. (2006). The impact of kindergarten learning-related skills on academic
trajectories at the end of elementary school. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 471–490.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source book. London: Sage Publishing.
Morrison, G. S. (1998). Early childhood education today (7th ed.). Columbus: Prentice Hall.
1508 E. DERELI İMAN ET AL.

Mutlu, B., Ergişi, A., Bütün-Ayhan, A., & Aral, N. (2012). Montessori education in preschool period. Journal of Ankara Health
Sciences, 1(3), 113–128.
Punch, K. F. (2005). Introduction to social research–quantitative & qualitative approaches. London: Sage Publishing.
Rathunde, K. (2005). Middle school students’ motivation and quality of experience: A comparison of Montessori and tra-
ditional school environments. American Journal of Education, 111(3), 341–372.
Şahin, D. (2010). Basic education programs and approaches to early childhood. Early childhood education (İbrahim Diken,
Ed.). Ankara: Pegem Academy Publications.
Sheppy, S. (2009). Personal, social and emotional development in the early years foundation. Stage. New York, NY:
Routledge
Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (1997). Emotional regulation among school-age children: The development and validation of a
new criterion Q-sort scale. Developmental Psychology, 33, 906–916.
Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (1998). Reactive aggression among maltreated children: The contributions of attention and
emotion dysregulation. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27, 381–395.
Shields, A. M., Cicchetti, D., & Ryan, R. M. (1994). The development of emotional and behavioral self-regulation and social
competence among maltreated school-age children. Development and Psychopathology, 6, 57–75.
Shields, A., Dickstein, S., Seifer, R., Giusti, L., Dodge M. K., & Spritz, B. (2001). Emotional competence and early school
adjustment: A study of preschoolers at risk. Early Education and Development, 12(1), 73–96.
Stoll-Lillard, A. (2016). Montessori: The science behind the genius. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Temel, F. (2005). New approaches in pre-school education. Journal of Education Science Mind and Light, 62, 888–894.
Temel, Z. F. (2015). Alternative approaches in preschool education. In A. Köksal Akyol, P. Bayhan, Z. F. Temel (Eds.), Every
direction preschool education 7. Ankara: Hedef CS Publishing.
Temel, F., & Toran, M. (2012). Montessori training method. Approaches and programs in early childhood education (F. Temel,
Ed.). Ankara: Vize Publishing.
Thompson, R. A. (1994). Emotion regulation: A theme in search of a definition. In N. A. Fox (Ed.), The development of
emotion regulation: Biological and behavioral considerations. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 59(2–3), 25–52.
Toran, M. (2011). Examination of Montessori’s method on children’s concept acquisition, social adaptation and effect on small
muscle motor skills (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Gazi University, Institute of Educational Sciences.
Vialatte, F. B., & Cichocki, A. (2008). Spit Test Bonferonni Correction for QEEG statistical maps. Biological Cybernetics, 98,
208–303.
Williams, M. (1996). Plato, piaget, and Montessori: A study of development theories (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Baylor University, Texas.
Yildirim, A., & Simsek, H. (2011). Qualitative research methods in social sciences (8th ed.). Ankara: Seçkin Publishing.